FAULTLINES IN TOP MANAGEMENT TEAMS;
THE ROLE OF ORGANIZATIONAL CHANGE FOR TRIGGERING FAULTLINES AND THE INFLUENCE OF FAULTLINES ON SHARED LEADERSHIP PROCESSES
An exploratory study
University of Groningen Faculty of Economics and Business
MSc Business Administration – Change Management
ABSTRACT
This study explores the role of organizational change for faultline activation in Top Management Teams (from now on: TMT’s) and the influence of faultlines on shared leadership processes. Qualitative research methods have been employed next to quantitative tools. Based on the findings, it can be concluded that different values with regard to change, and differential treatment resulting from change, resemble important faultline trigger events in TMT’s. The faultlines that predominantly emerge from such events are; personality attributed features, function, competence, resistance to change and tenure. TMT’s where multiple faultlines align; bring forth subgroups that endure more influence, rendering shared leadership low. TMT’s where faultlines fail to align are characterized by high levels of shared leadership.
Key words: Organizational change, faultline triggers, shared leadership Word count: 22.284 (excluding appendices)
Acknowledgements
TABLE OF CONTENTS 1. INTRODUCTION ... 1 2. LITERATURE REVIEW ... 5 2.1 Organizational change ... 5 2.2 Group Faultlines ... 7 2.3 Shared leadership ... 10 3. METHODS... 13 3.1 Sample ... 13 3.2 Procedure ... 13 3.3 Measures ... 15 3.3.1. Interviews ... 15 3.3.2 Observations ... 16 3.3.3. Questionnaire ... 17 3.4 Data analysis ... 17 4. RESULTS ... 19 4.1 Case 1: ZHG ... 19 4.2 Case 2: PLT ... 25 4.3: Case 3: MZH ... 30 4.4: Case 4: NDP ... 33 4.5: Cross-case analysis ... 37
5. CONCLUSION & DISCUSSION ... 41
Managerial implications ... 44
Limitations... 44
Future research directions... 45
6. REFERENCES ... 46
7. APPENDICES ... 52
Appendix A – Interview start-up ... 52
Appendix B – Interview questions ... 53
Appendix C – Behavioral observation form ... 55
Appendix D – Questionnaire ... 57
1
1. INTRODUCTION
Due to the emergence of a global economic crisis in 2008, much of recent debate has focused on the absence of diversity within TMT’s. Christine Lagarde, chief of the International Monetary Fund (IMF), said the following during an interview in 2010: “If Lehman Brothers had been a little bit more
Lehman Sisters & Brothers, we would not have had the degree of tragedy that we had as a result of what happened (…)”. Subsequently, the IMF recently published a study (2013) that argues that the
progress towards a ‘level playing field’ (in terms of gender equality on the labor market) has come to a standstill, ultimately leading to lower economic growth of up until 27% of gross domestic product for some countries involved. Bold statements like the one quoted from Christine Lagarde and such studies published by the IMF, suggest the idea that gender diversity is to be acknowledged as a significant contribution to the global economy.
In effect, due to globalization, increased workforce diversity and job complexity, this trend of added emphasis on diversity has come to play a key role in organizations (Williams & O’Reilly, 1998). On the organizational level however, research efforts focusing on the impact of diversity effects have remained largely inconsistent (Jackson, Joshi & Erhardt, 2003; Mannix & Neale, 2005; Stewart, 2006; Webber & Donahue, 2001; Williams & O’Reilly, 1998). Due to this inconsistency, two competing perspectives have emerged among diversity scholars. First there is the ‘value in diversity’ hypothesis (Cox, Lobel & McLeod, 1991), which is supported among scholars that found results indicating that diversity improves group processes and performance. Meanwhile, the ‘pessimistic view of diversity’ (Mannix & Neale, 2005) argues that diversity results in negative effects that impede group processes and performance. The pessimistic view of diversity uses similarity-attraction theory (Byrne, 1971) and social categorization theory (Tajfel, 1981; Turner, 1987) to explain how individuals are attracted towards other group members that are most similar to themselves, in terms of, for example; demographics or values. However, these theories remain limited in their power to explain diversity effects due to their focus on a single diversity attribute (Lau & Murnighan, 1998; Thatcher, Jehn & Zanutto, 2003; Molleman, 2005). Such models assume that the diversity attributes under consideration are the main reason for social dissimilarity, and that each attribute is equally important. However, depending on the context, any attribute can be more or less important, which is why there is explanatory value in examining multiple attributes and their interactions (Lau & Murnighan, 1998).
‘Faultlines’, a concept first introduced by Lau & Murnighan in 1998, allows researchers to examine multiple diversity characteristics simultaneously, consequently generating deepened insights into the underlying patterns of group member characteristics, which have shown to be of importance for (a.o.) subgroup conflict. Faultlines are defined as “hypothetical dividing lines that may split a
group into subgroups based on one or more attributes” (Lau & Murnighan, 1998. p 328). As more
2
dynamics. The strength, or salience, of a faultline depends on three factors; the number of attributes apparent to group members, their alignment, and the number of potentially homogenous subgroups (Lau & Murnighan, 1998). Stronger faultlines therefore align several diversity characteristics that reduce the number of homogenous subgroups, while weaker faultlines occur when attributes are less aligned and multiple subgroups are able to emerge. According to Lau and Murnighan (1998) groups may house various potential faultlines, of which each can activate or increase different subgroupings. This so-called activation process makes for the occasion that dormant faultlines, actually become perceived by group members as the reason for the emergence of subgroups. This process explains how the effect of demographic differences lays in the perception of the individual (Jehn & Bezrukova, 2010).
Lau and Murnighan (1998) note that the activation of a group’s faultlines is likely to depend on the groups’ task context. In effect, similar to how the absence of a level playing field in terms of gender equality might raise sex-related opposition, the perception of the need for organizational change might, for example, offset young managers with regard to old managers as social identities can act as a lens through which one views certain events (McInnes, Beech, de Caestecker, MacIntosh & Ross, 2006; Hotho, 2008). Mintzberg (1979) mentions that formulating and implementing organizational changes is one of the key responsibilities of TMT’s. Govert & Duxbury (2012) show on an organizational level how such changes can trigger the activation of an organization-wide faultline. Govert & Duxbury (2012) however, limit themselves to the viewpoint that organizational change as a faultline activating mechanism only influences recipients of change. This agent-centered view of responses to change, treats agents as if they are not presented with new, different, or problematic situations that are troubling or uncertain to them (Ford, Ford & D’Amelio, 2008). In extend to Balogun and Johnson’s (2005) arguments that managers are often both recipient and agent, I argue that although this is not reflected in literature, top level managers will also have to make significant personal changes when faced with organizational change. On that note, the role of organizational change as a trigger or activator of faultlines may have an effect on TMT’s that are indulged in organizational change, due to the point that organizational change is part of-, and of impact for a TMT’s task context.
3
on an organizational level as such faultlines result from differences in the cognitive bases of TMT members, which are reflected in organizational outcomes (Hampbrick & Mason, 1984).
Evidence suggests that organizational change has become very important for organizations, which is partly due to its wide presence. Already in 1993 (P. 23), Hammer & Champy declared that
“change has become both pervasive and persistent. It is normality”. The other reason for the
popularity of research efforts that focus on organizational change however, lies with the fact that it is particularly hard to manage. Realin & Cataldo (2011) argue that 75% of all organizational changes fail and that change failure is an important denominator for organizational failure. These findings add towards the notion that research efforts on factors explaining change outcome are much needed.
From the perspective of upper echelons theory, these results are a reflection of the characteristics of top level managers. However, research efforts that focus on TMT diversity and rely on upper-echelons theory have typically neglected the processes that link diversity effects to outcomes (Lawrence, 1997; Simons, Pelled & Smith, 1999). The study of mere demographic predictors and organizational outcomes require additional theoretical constructs that explain such relationships. Extant literature often loosely defines such theoretical concepts, or neglects measuring these altogether, resulting in a ‘black box’ of untested theories. Lawrence (1997) argues that deepening the understanding of the actions that occur within the ‘black box’ is required to overcome serious theoretical problems.
A novel theoretical construct that might add to the understanding of the processes that play a role in the ‘black box’ and link TMT diversity effects to organizational level outcomes, is shared leadership. Currently, a growing body of organizational research examines leadership not as property of individuals and their behaviors, but as a collective attribute that is distributed or shared among a group of people, potentially fluid, and constructed through interaction (Denis, Langley & Sergi, 2012). This ‘pooling of leadership capacities at the top to direct others’, or ‘collective, shared or distributed leadership’ (the term shared leadership will be employed within this study), focuses on situations where two or more people jointly work together as co-leaders of out-group members (Alvarez & Svejenova, 2005; Hodgson, Levinson & Zaleznik, 1965). With shared leadership, the role of leadership resides in the group as they focus on reaching common objectives. The definition of shared leadership that is proposed by Pearce & Conger (2003, P.1) states that shared leadership is “a
dynamic, interactive influence process among individuals in groups for which the objective is to lead one another to the achievement of group or organizational goals or both”. Day, Gronn & Salas (2004)
argue that there is a need for greater attention towards the dynamics of shared leadership teams. Studying shared leadership processes within TMT’s allows for an initial peek into the ‘black box’ of mediating processes between TMT diversity and organizational outcomes and could provide new insights into processes that explain this relationship.
4
Figure 1: Conceptual Model
value of shared leadership as a distal outcome of TMT diversity, it will show the potential of organizational change to activate faultlines within TMT’s and it will elucidate the attributes on which such faultlines are based. Consequently, from a managerial perspective; increased understanding in how shared leadership processes can result from TMT faultlines will benefit any organization in terms of, for example, lessons learned for recruitment policies. Furthermore, clarity on the role and nature of organizational change as a faultline activating event will allow TMT’s to derive valuable lessons for good managerial conduct on how to formulate and implement organizational changes. In order to generate these contributions, this study adopts the following research question:
Research Question: How does organizational change trigger faultlines in TMT’s and what are the effects of such faultlines on shared leadership?
Figure one graphically represents the research question that will be studied within this paper. This question will be studied within four TMT’s. In the consecutive part, the theoretical framework will be developed through a literature review. Here, all important constructs will be described. The specific case descriptions will be highlighted in the results section in order to provide context. The data gathering methods and the development of the measures that were employed will be discussed in the methods section. Furthermore, the outcomes will be discussed in the results section, which will be followed by a conclusion where the research question will be addressed. To conclude, the discussion will emphasize all implications, limitations and future recommendations deducted from this study.
5
2. LITERATURE REVIEW
This part outlines the constructs that have been introduced and that are the central topic throughout this study. First organizational change and faultline triggers will be addressed, after which faultlines and shared leadership will be outlined. These parts each conclude with a sub question that is drafted in order to study these constructs.
2.1 Organizational change
As mentioned in the introduction, organizational change has come to play a key role in the ever changing environment organizations find themselves in today. The struggles of management to successfully formulate and implement organizational changes are evident, as is the importance of organizational change for firms in general (Realin & Cataldo, 2011). This research abandons the agent-centered view of responses to change as I argue that TMT members might experience new, different, or problematic situations that are troubling or uncertain to them when formulating and implementing new organizational changes, that consequently influence the way in which TMT members interact.
Deciding on-, and bringing about organizational changes is a key part of the TMT’s task context (Mintzberg, 1973), and the negotiation processes that precede this have seen much attention in academic research. In 1963, Cyert & March proposed that determining goals and making decisions is something that is largely done by a dominant coalition. Coalitions in TMT’s, each pursuing certain interests, seek allies and build alliances in order to exert their influence. Therefore, I assume that collaboration and decision-making within TMT’s with regard to formulating and implementing organizational change, does not necessarily sprout from unanimity or goal congruence among all TMT members. Therefore, TMT members are, as mentioned before in line with the arguments posed by Balogun & Johnson (2005) and Ford et al. (2008), both agent and recipient with regard to organizational change. This notion deserves emphasis as in effect, organizational change does not necessarily have to coincide wide the particular interests of each TMT member and might therefore house the potential to create division in the TMT.
6
organizational changes is a product of the dominant coalition within a TMT, such decisions could house the potential to activate group faultlines in TMT’s.
Chrobot-Mason, Ruderman, Weber & Ernst (2009) have found five triggers that activate faultlines. These triggers are known to cause an eruption of tension in the workplace, and have a negative impact on the group, as it creates the setting for power struggles and conflict among subgroups. These triggers are expected to relate towards organizational changes that TMT’s are indulged in and resemble the following:
Differential treatment occurs when dominant and non-dominant groups experience different treatment in terms of valued resource allocation or negative consequences. The perception of threat that accompanies this trigger occurs due to one’s feelings of being undervalued through in-group favoritism and out-group derogation (Chrobot-Mason et al., 2009). With regard to organizational change, this potentially resembles some TMT members experiencing more negative-, and or less positive consequences from organizational change. Oreg, Vakola & Armenakis (2011), in their 60-year review of responses to change, show how perceived benefits and harms of organizational change are an important denominator of explicit reactions to change. As organizational change might have different benefits and harms for different TMT members, the occurrence of differential treatment is likely to play a role in TMT’s and is therefore expected to be an important trigger for faultlines in TMT’s.
Different values are found to be another important trigger for group faultlines. When TMT members have decidedly different beliefs or values (of a religious, moral or political nature), these can cause the TMT to split on certain issues. Differing values can cause strong threats to individuals when they feel that their fundamental sense of right and wrong is called into question by others (Chrobot-Mason et al., 2009). It can be expected that deciding on-, and formulating and implementing organizational change, can range in alignment with any individuals’ values or beliefs. As what seems wrong to one TMT member might seem right to the other. Oreg et al. (2011) have found individual’s characteristics to be of importance for one’s response towards change. It is therefore expected that different values in respect to organizational change can be an important trigger for group faultlines in TMT’s.
7
involvement with the change, to behave in a similar fashion. It is therefore expected that in respect to organizational change, assimilation can be an important trigger for faultlines in TMT’s.
Insults or humiliating actions are comments or behaviors focused at devaluating group members relative to others. Offensive comments, insults or humiliating acts that are attributed to polarized groups with regard to organizational change are unlikely to occur on a large scale in TMT’s, but are mentioned as, when they occur, insults or humiliating actions are known to have an escalating effect (Chrobot-Mason et al., 2009). These actions can only be identified as such when they are not purely interpersonal, but tied to a group identity (in this case related to opposing group characteristics with regard to organizational change) in either the mind of the insulter or the insulted. If insults or humiliating actions occur within TMT’s in respect to organizational change, these are expected to be an important trigger for faultlines.
Simple contact encompasses the bringing together of people whose identity groups are involved in a highly publicized or emotional event in society. Simple contact was found by Chrobot-Mason et al. (2009) to play a role in only a small number of situations where social identity relations were tense in society at large. As organizational changes do not define personal identities in society, it is expected that simple contact will not attribute towards faultline activation in TMT’s. However, it must be noted that when organizational change polarizes TMT’s due to the emotional nature of the change, simple contact might still provide explanatory power for faultline activation in TMT’s due to the experience of strong threats to individuals by other TMT members. Simple contact is therefore expected to be a trigger for faultlines in TMT’s, albeit only if the nature of the organizational change under consideration provides enough tension.
In summary, all of the five faultline triggers that have been recognized by Chrobot-Mason et al. (2009) are potentially related towards organizational change, and are therefore expected to be of influence for faultline activation in TMT’s that decide on formulating and implementing organizational changes. The following subquestion will be employed in order to find out how organizational change might trigger faultlines in TMT’s:
Sub Question 1: How does organizational change trigger faultlines within TMT’s?
2.2 Group Faultlines
8
gender faultlines for example have the ability to divide groups into male and female subgroups. As further mentioned in the introduction, faultline strength can vary within groups: as more diversity attributes line up in the same way, faultlines become stronger and therefore gain importance for subgroup dynamics and developmental group processes. It is noted that, depending on the similarity and salience of group members’ attributes, groups can have many different potential faultlines and each of these faultlines may activate different subgroups. Furthermore, faultlines become activated from the moment that they are perceived by group members as the reason for the emergence of subgroups (Jehn & Bezrukova, 2010).
A wide range of attributes can resemble faultline bases, each impacting group outcomes in different ways. Scholars distinguish between different types of diversity: Pelled, Eisenhardt & Xin (1999) for example, categorize attributes on the degree to which they relate to the job at hand. As job-related attributes, such as educational- or functional background, capture perspectives that are closely related to relevant team-processes; these are of higher importance for a work-team than non-job-related demographic attributes such as race or gender (Webber & Donahue, 2001). Simons et al. (1999) have found that job-related diversity attributes influence TMT’s performance, while non-job-related characteristics are not found to influence TMT’s performance.
Another interesting categorization is put forth by Harrison, Price & Bell, 1998 as they differentiate between surface-level diversity attributes and deep-level diversity attributes. The former resembles attributes such as age, sex and race, while the latter encompasses psychological features of team members such as personality traits (Barsade, Ward, Turner & Sonnenfeld, 2000), values (Jehn, Chadwick & Thatcher, 1997), attitudes, preferences and beliefs (Harrison et al., 1998). Much of recent faultline research has however focused on surface-level attributes such as age, sex and race. The emphasis on these attributes may have been due to an array of reasons such as; the ease with which one can measure these, the belief that these are of importance for underlying psychological characteristics or due to the need to legitimize certain legislation that prohibits employment discrimination (Harrison et al., 1998). However, the effects of heterogeneity in surface-level attributes have been largely inconsistent across studies. Harrison et al. (1998) and Harrison, Price, Gavin & Florey (2000) have found that as groups continue to interact, dissimilarity between surface-level attributes becomes less important than dissimilarity in deep-level attributes. As information about such factors is communicated and learned through extended interaction, deep-level attributes gain importance as groups develop.
9
demographic faultlines in groups whose members know each other well. In effect, studying group faultlines in TMT’s will likely bring forth faultline bases that are either job-related or deep-levelled or both. It is expected that when strong faultlines occur within TMT’s with regard to a combination of these categories, these are of fundamental value in explaining group processes, as research has found that differences are critical if deep-level attributes bear on the fundamental purpose of the team (Pelled et al., 1999). Consequently, it may be expected that faultlines within TMT’s are related to the organizational change, as these house potential to resemble both deep-level attributes, as highly job-related attributes. Attraction potentially occurs between TMT members that are similar in respect to their stance, vision and reactions to change, as these reinforce their own beliefs, affect and behaviors (Harrison et al., 2000). Founded on this line of reasoning, the faultlines I expect to find within TMT’s will now be further addressed, although one should not assume that the set of attributes that is described are the dominant, salient or central criteria for social division in TMT’s, as depending on context, any given attribute may be more or less relevant.
Oreg et al. (2011) have reviewed the wide body of knowledge that has attempted to create insights into the reactions of change recipients towards organizational change. Their overview resulting from a 60-year meta-analysis of change recipients’ reactions to organizational change, shows how pre-change- and change antecedents are linked to individual’s affective, cognitive and behavioral reactions to change. As this study abandons the agent-centered view of reactions to change, I regard TMT members to be both agent and recipient of organizational change. Differences between TMT members in their affective, cognitive and behavioral reactions to organizational change, resemble job-related and deep-level attributes, which therefore house potential for faultline bases.
10
explicitly conceptualized either as behaviors in response to the change or as reported intentions to behave. Known examples are; participation-, resistance- and supporting behavior, while some scholars have focused on coping behavior (Oreg et al., 2011). Assessing the value of explicit reactions to change for faultline bases is valuable, as the interplay between said reactions could be of influence for the activation (or absence) of faultlines within TMT’s.
It cannot be expected that explicit reactions to change are the sole and primary reason for faultline occurrence within TMT’s. It is expected that other deep-level and or job-related attributes will proof to be important for explaining social division. Some other attributes that are expected to be found are informational attributes. These reflect differences in knowledge bases and perspectives that members bring to the group (Jehn, Northcraft & Neale, 1999). Examples of such faultlines are levels of education and tenure studied by Bezrukova, Jehn, Zanutto & Thatcher (2009). Next to these proven concepts, the concept of vision to change, or beliefs about change, are expected to resemble potentially strong faultline bases. De Caluwé & Vermaak (2006) have introduced a five-dimension vision-to-change test that explains an individuals’ preferred style of dealing with organizational vision-to-change. This colors-theory allows four different applications: looking at organizations; executing changes; operating as change agent and; communicating about change. Each of the five different colors represents different metaphors, diagnostic models, criteria for success, intervention theories and roles of the change agent. As these colors depict a TMT members’ ‘modus operandi’, they are job-related and deep-level attributes that are therefore expected to house potential to act as faultline bases. All in all, it can be expected that differences in TMT members’ explicit reactions to change, informational attributes and vision to change will resemble important faultline bases. However, since the nature of this study is qualitative with the goal to assess the attributes on which faultlines in TMT’s are based, the following sub question is employed:
Sub Question 2: How do differences with regard to TMT members’ deep-level and job-related attributes explain group faultlines in TMT’s?
2.3 Shared leadership
11
leading change in organizations. Therefore, in many organizations, leadership and authority are divided over multiple top leadership roles (Denis et al., 2012).
Although some authors remain skeptical towards shared leadership (Locke, 2003; Schumpeter, 2010), selected examples of large organizations such as (a.o.) Goldman-Sachs, Google, Microsoft, Boeing, Intel, HP, Ford, Oracle, Disney and Motorola have shown that shared leadership can improve organizational effectiveness (O’Toole, Galbraith & Lawler, 2003; Alvarez & Svejenova, 2005). Furthermore, Ensley, Hmieleski, and Pearce (2006) have shown that shared leadership predicted firm’s financial performance in a two-sample study. Therefore, shared leadership has received increased attention in both management and academic literature. In contrast to what was generally believed with regard to leadership in the 19th century, shared leadership does not encompass a top-down, command and control perspective. On the contrary, the notion that it makes more sense to follow the person in the group with the most situational knowledge (Follett, 1924) and the idea that a leader can emerge or be selected by a leaderless group (Hollander, 1961), allowed for the initial development of shared leadership. Many other concepts have passed by however, before shared leadership eventually gained momentum, while the majority of current research focusing on shared leadership still has a conceptual nature; identifying both antecedents and outcomes of shared leadership in a wide variety of situations.
It is through the collective contribution of TMT members that leadership can be recognized as such within the organization, even though there might be some hierarchical ordering between them (Denis et al., 2012). Hodgson et al. (1965), in their book on shared leadership, argue that successful collaboration in a TMT is due to the specialization-, differentiation- and complementarity of the roles that members have. They argue that these features are necessary for a collection of leaders to become effective. Other authors nuanced these findings through adding that intuitive mutual adjustment of roles within the ‘shared role space’, together with recognition of; interdependence, trust and commitment to a common vision characterize these relationships (Stewart, 1991; Dass, 1995). In effect, shared leadership resembles a lens for conceptualizing and studying leadership as a team capacity, not as a mere individual contribution to teamwork. The shared leadership team creates the leadership capacity as a function of its collective human capital, teamwork and learning.
12
contingency that provides such tensions, faultlines activated through organizational change are expected to influence shared leadership processes in TMT’s.
Johnson, Schnatterly & Hill (2010) mention on several occasions that distal outcomes of TMT’s diversity are hard to asses. Therefore this study will assess the outcome of shared leadership processes. It is expected that strong faultlines within TMT’s have the potential to disrupt the shared leadership process. The definition of shared leadership that is posed by Pearce & Conger (2003, p.1) states that shared leadership is “a dynamic, interactive influence process among individuals in groups
for which the objective is to lead one another to the achievement of group or organizational goals or both”.In order to find out how faultlines in TMT’s influence shared leadership, the following sub
question is stated:
13
3. METHODS
In order to obtain detailed and rich descriptions that emphasize context, in-depth semi-structured interviews represent the primary source of data. The interviews focused on generating theoretical insights that existing theories do not yet fully cover (Ozcan & Eisenhardt, 2009) through asking certain ‘why’ and ‘how’ questions (Cooper & Schindler, 2008). Qualitative and quantitative observations and a quantitative questionnaire have been administered for triangulation purposes, as combining these helps overcome the flaws of individual instruments (van Aken et al., 2012). Observations were employed in order to compare between self-reports of behavior and actual behavior. Questionnaires were administered in order to gather data on respondents’ demographics and potential faultline bases. Assessing the role of organizational change for the activation of faultlines, the bases of these faultlines and their influence on shared leadership, requires methodologies that allow for constructing detailed understanding of the matter at hand, for which qualitative research is appropriately suited, especially if supported by quantitative methods.
3.1 Sample
Four TMT’s from four different organizations have been subjected to this study. These TMT’s all operate in a semi-public capacity, three of which in the healthcare industry and one in education. The organizational changes that are administered differ in process and content. Including multiple cases with different organizational changes increases the reliability of this study as the ability to gather multiple different views was enhanced.
The sample entails 31 TMT members in total, of whom 16 are male and 15 are female. All of the TMT members are high ranking directors and managers, officially part of the TMT that is studied (excluding ZHG8 who is an external consultant temporarily allocated towards the ZHG TMT). All TMT members are Dutch and their level of education ranges from HBO to PhD, with the dominant share having obtained a master (MSc. / MA) degree. The TMT members range in age from 38 till 59 with an average age of 50.3. Tenure of employment (within their respective organization) averaged at 11.3 years, while team tenure averaged at 5.1 years. Table 1 displays the information of all TMT members per case. A detailed description per case can be found in the corresponding results paragraph.
3.2 Procedure
14
Table 1: Information respondents per case *): Years.
Respondents: Function: Gender Age
Level of education Field of education Tenure (team)* Tenure (organization)*
Case 1: ZHG1 General director M 58 PhD Healthcare 21 29
ZHG2 Financial director M 45 MSc./MA Business 10 18
ZHG3 Controller F 52 MSc./MA Accounting 6 6
ZHG4 Care Division Manager F 40 MSc./MA Business 4 4
ZHG5 Cure Manager F 59 MSc./MA Healthcare 6 20
ZHG6 Care Division Manager M 41 MSc./MA Business 1 1
ZHG7 Facilities Manager M 56 HBO Business 12 25
ZHG8 External Consultant M 42 MSc./MA Business N/A N/A
Case 2: PLT1 District Manager F 45 HBO Healthcare 1 6
PLT2 District Manager F 51 HBO Healthcare 11 11
PLT3 District Manager F 53 HBO Healthcare 2 2
PLT4 Senior Advisor F 48 MSc./MA Business 11 11
PLT5 District Manager M 46 MSc./MA Healthcare 2 2
PLT6 Director Properties M 58 MSc./MA Business 13 20
PLT7 General Director F 50 HBO Business 3 12
PLT8 Cure Manager F 54 HBO Healthcare 5 5
Case 3: MZH1 (Board) Secretary M 44 MSc./MA Healthcare 3 3
MZH2 ICT Director M 44 MSc./MA Business 3 3
MZH3 Quality Director F 56 MSc./MA Sociology 3 10
MZH4 Communications Director F 46 HBO Journalism 3 12
MZH5 HRM Director M 55 MSc./MA Business 3 4
MZH6 Facilities Director M 59 PhD Business 3 25
Case 4: NDP1 HRM Director F 38 MSc./MA Sociology 2 2
NDP2 Marketing Director F 39 MSc./MA Literature 6 6
NDP3 Finance Director M 50 MSc./MA Business 8 8
NDP4 Director Board Services M 55 MSc./MA Math 3 12
NDP5 Director Properties M 55 MSc./MA Physics 6 16
NDP6 Director ICT & Facilities M 46 MSc./MA Business 2 2
NDP7 Director Student Services M 57 MSc./MA Business 1 20
NDP8 Board Advisor F 56 MSc./MA Anthropology 3 16
15
For relatively easy access towards potential cases, I cooperated with a management consulting firm. This resulted in the opportunity to preselect a number of clients that were in an organizational change situation. Before contacting these clients, all consultants were instructed by me about what this study entails, after which clients were introduced by their consultants to most of the basic elements of this study via e-mail, phone or face-to-face communication. The few client firms that responded to this invitation have been screened for suitability. Screening focused on; whether the organizational change impacted all TMT members, whether the possibility to do interviews with all TMT members and do observations at TMT meetings was provided, and whether the time-frame to do this did not exceed scope. The latter point was given less weight in overall screening. The organizations that sufficed to these criteria were contacted for planning interview appointments with individual TMT members as well as observation appointments for group meetings where the organizational change for that particular case would be discussed.
All members of each TMT have been interviewed face-to-face in a secluded and quiet place in or around their office. Due to this set-up, interviewees were free to share both fact and feeling (Baxter & Babbie, 2003). The average time per interview was 45 minutes (excluding intro, outro and post-interview questionnaire). All post-interviews were recorded with the Recordium App for iOS, ensuring maximum data security, and were held in Dutch, the native language of the respondents and the researcher. All 31 interviews took place between the 6th of January and the 6th of February 2014. All four observations took place between the 17th of December 2013 and the 3rd of February 2014.
3.3 Measures 3.3.1. Interviews
The main source of data for this study included in-depth semi-structured interviews. Most interview-questions have a set of sub-interview-questions that are employed to ensure that the respondent sufficiently understood the question. This allowed the researcher some flexibility, leaving room to explore different issues and probe for particular ones. This enabled interviewees to express their opinion and views in order to prevent answer bias (Van Aken et al., 2012). The interview start-up that has been employed can be found in appendix A, the standardized interview protocol that has been employed can be found in Appendix B. Since this study builds forth on a set of constructs that do not have fully developed triangulated measurement scales, their definitions have been employed to formulate open-ended interview questions in order to ensure construct validity.
The nature of the change was assessed in order to create detailed understanding of the organizational change, as the change is expected to play a role for faultline activation. Therefore, questions related to reasons, goals, impact, phase and satisfaction with regard to the change were administered.
16
for social division (Simon & Klandermans, 2001; Lau & Murnighan, 1998; Potter & Wetherell, 1987). Questions resembled the following (a.o.): “I would like to ask you to think of an occurrence or
situation where you became strongly aware of certain differences between members of this group during the process regarding this change” and: “could you tell me about this occurrence or situation? What happened at that moment?”. These questions reflect moments where TMT members became
aware of social division based on faultlines.
Faultline bases were assessed through interview questions relating to perceived faultline bases, to the extent that TMT members experience division on the alignment of certain attributes (Lau & Murnighan, 1998). Questions resembled the following (a.o.): “of what differences did you then
become aware?”, “do some TMT members find or support each other more often in the process regarding this change?”, and: “why do you think these people find or support each other, what do they have in common?”.
Shared leadership was assessed through interview questions based on the definition of Pearce & Conger (2003) who outline shared leadership as a dynamic and interactive influence process, where leadership is recognized as a collective contribution of the TMT (Denis et al., 2012). These questions resembled (a.o.): “could you describe how the TMT makes decisions?” and: “to what extent do you
experience room to express your opinion?”. This set of questions was explicitly asked on two
occasions: pre-change and post-change (or peri-change). In order to find out how the change, or its resulting faultlines might have generated a shift in shared leadership.
Furthermore, TMT members were asked about characterizing features of the interaction processes that occur within the TMT in order to assess any important contextual factors that might be valuable for explaining certain findings.
3.3.2 Observations
17
nature (Sapsford & Jupp, 2006), therefore, observations were collected quantitatively and qualitatively; in descriptive and reflective field notes and with the use of a behavior observation form (Appendix C). The observations were processed directly afterwards in order to increase accuracy (and therefore validity) due to overcoming distortion effects. The purpose of observation data is to verify the outcomes of the interviews, and have been processed similarly to the interview transcripts.
The behavior observation form shows many similarities towards the interview protocol as it measures the same constructs (except faultline triggers as these can only be asses through TMT members). Shared leadership, the occurrence of faultlines and their respective bases have been assessed quantitatively (7-point Likert scale) and qualitatively (field notes). The quantitative faultline base items were based on the 7-point Likert items proposed by Jehn & Bezrukova (2010): “during the
meeting the team split into subgroups based on: gender, age, tenure (etc.)” ranging from 1 (strongly
disagree) to 7 (strongly agree). Shared leadership was assessed through 7-point Likert scales deducted from the definition proposed by Pearce & Conger (2003): “during the meeting: everybody’s input was
important; one person was in charge; everybody had the same amount of influence on results; some TMT members had most influence”.
3.3.3. Questionnaire
In order to gather demographic data on respondents and quantify potential faultline bases, a questionnaire was employed (appendix D). In addition to the constructs measured in the behavior observation form, the questionnaire entailed two potential job-related and deep-level faultline bases that could be hard to appoint by TMT members.
Resistance to change has been administered through 7-point Likert scale items that measure
“the unwillingness to change and reinforcing of the status quo” (Batistelli, Montani, & Odoardi,
2013).
Vision to change has been assessed through a five-dimension vision to change test (De Caluwé & Vermaak, 2006). This test explains an individuals’ preferred style of dealing with organizational change
As it is not self-evident that TMT members are naturally aware of such attributes for themselves, let alone their team, these are administered through the questionnaire. This data will be presented in tables for every case in order to give a clear overview of the faultline bases that are found and the subgroups they consequently create. Questionnaires were filled in directly after the interviews under supervision of the researcher.
3.4 Data analysis
18
design of this study: this permits more accurate measurement and firmer grounds for emergent theory if these constructs prove useful (Eisenhardt, 1989).
The researcher created a deductive a priori template of codes for data driven inductive coding, which allowed the researcher to switch between emerging concepts and the framework that acted as a basis for this study (Miles & Huberman, 1994). This approach allowed flexible, yet structured and stern analysis. The coding scheme was based on the definitions of the constructs under consideration and can be found in Appendix E. During the analyses the coding scheme is further developed with multiple codes per variable. The transcriptions average 10.4 pages per interviewee (322 pages in total), while the field notes average 6.5 pages (26 in total).
All transcripts have been coded using open coding and selective coding: first a within-case-analysis was made for each case. Within these analyses interviews and field notes were processed using open coding techniques in order to label concepts, key terms and sentences to categories based on their respective dimensions, after which selective coding was performed in order to combine the categories and interrelationships in order to get a clear grip on the results (Van Aken et al., 2012). Cross-case analysis was executed afterwards, in which conclusion were deducted and compared from all four cases in order to find similarities from which overall conclusions can be deducted. Using both within-case analyses and cross-case analysis is beneficial to internal validity as multiple perspectives and levels of analyses have been compared (Van Aken et al., 2012).
19
4. RESULTS
In this section, important information about context, such as the nature of the change and key characteristics of each case are discussed followed by the results regarding faultline triggers, faultline bases and shared leadership. Differences in the length of within-case-analyses are depicted on the varying degrees of relevancy in results.
4.1 Case 1: ZHG
ZHG represents a large semi-public organization active within the healthcare industry in the central region of the Netherlands. Their core business entails high-end care and cure for the elderly and other care-dependent patients. The organization has a strong footprint in the region but expects budgetary cuts in the face of new regulations and legislation. This has led the organization to initiate a reorganization, which is the primary change and focus within this case. In respect to the reason for this change, results indicate division within the TMT. Two members indicate that the reason for this change is endogenous, while four members emphasize that it is purely exogenous (resulting from external stimuli). The goal of this change results in similar outcomes: improving efficiency and effectiveness are predominantly mentioned by respectively five and four TMT members, while other reasons such as ensuring business continuity (1), ensuring financial stability (2), decentralizing (1) and decreasing size (2) have also been mentioned. Agreement resides in the impact of the change, as all but one TMT member is convinced the change will affect the entire organization to a large degree. The change is currently in its starting blocks and TMT members are reported being satisfied. The change will influence TMT members personally as half of the TMT will lose their jobs since cost cutting will focus on the upper echelons of the organization. The change resembles a delicate matter as the stakes are high and outcome distribution is unequal. In addition to this, the absence of a sense of security and equality in the team is emphasized by six out of eight TMT members.
4.1.1. Faultline triggers
Within this TMT, all members reflected upon trigger events that were directly related to the change. The change is noted making social identity salient, as one TMT member mentioned: “I think that most
differences I detected were already on my radar, but they surfaced much more clearly because you have to work closely together”. All mentioned triggers fitted comfortably within the boundaries
proposed by Chrobot-Mason et al. (2009).
Differential treatment was mentioned by five out of eight TMT members as a reason for becoming aware of social division in the TMT. One example specified an event where one TMT member felt ‘being left out’, after she did not receive information that others did: “a decision was
20
and first rank or something”. While another example indicated: “we’ve had a discussion about the degree to which all financial resources would have to go to the care divisions. The division-managers had an entirely different opinion about this than I have (…), they want to spend everything on care, and neglect the fact that overhead is a useful and required function”. The perception of threat that
accompanies these triggers occurs clearly due to one’s feelings of being undervalued through in-group favoritism and out-group derogation because different treatment and consequences occur over information, resources and negative consequences.
Different values are strong faultine trigger events as strong threats are perceived when these are called into question by others. Five TMT members have indicated different values to be of essence, as one TMT member mentioned: “we have been working together for years and I thought we pursued
the same thing, also in terms of ambitions and ideals. Apparently we have to make some adjustments to come to a common frame of reference”. Or as another TMT member put it: “it shocked me to see that not everybody has the capacity to think ‘even if I lose my job, we’ll still be doing the right thing for the organization’. That disappointed me (…), they think it is difficult, that is kind of sad, it annoys me: ‘we can all go ahead, sobbing and crying, but we are not here for ourselves’. Then you’re on a different level if you ask me”.
Assimilation is mentioned two times by one TMT member with regard to two events that were both “striking instances” of when individuals are expected to align their behavior with others, as she mentioned: “that was such a remarkable event, with such commotion, that I thought ‘come on, you
can expect from a TMT member that you do not respond in such a way”.
Insults or humiliating actions houses a similar impact as one TMT member mentions in respect to an instance when he found out about rumors that were spread around him: “that led to a lot
of personal grief… I mean: ‘you are looking for moments that made me look differently at events. Here you have it: this is a moment where I started to look differently at my colleagues”.
Simple contact resembles the fifth and last category and is mentioned by a single TMT member to resemble a mere “logical consequence that has to do with non-verbal communication” and therefore houses little value for triggering faultlines in TMT’s.
21 4.1.2 Faultline bases
All TMT members experience faultlines, while they also manage to independently produce a coherent image as to who belongs to what subgroup. First the faultline bases that have been reported will be discussed, after which the subgroups that exist as a result will be addressed.
Function is reported by seven out of eight TMT members to be an important faultine basis. Function is mentioned to reflect TMT members’ position and responsibilities within the team (director / manager): “when I was a manager you would criticize the director together (…) but now that I’m a
director, I no longer ‘howl with the wolves’ but my loyalty lies with the other director and my position has changed towards the managers”. Furthermore, function also resembles the nature of the jobs
different managers have and the boundary span of their function: “I think ZHG5 is quite solitary in the
TMT and her job, which is because her function is an island, she doesn’t have ideas or opinions on our work as she operates in a limited territory and our work has little relevance for hers”. It is
apparent that managers share similarities on their function and the distinctness of its boundaries. Personality attributed features are reported by seven out of eight TMT members to have a distinct explanatory value for division in the TMT. In respect to ZHG4, ZHG6 and ZHG7 it is mentioned that “that has to do with whether they recognize each other, whether they have a common
‘style’” and “they have a common way of thinking, of responding; they are a bit ‘red’, all three of them have that and because they are comparable in that respect, they like each other personally, it’s that simple”. These TMT members are widely referred to as ‘pragmatic’ and ‘red’ people who are
straightforward and have little regard for details and feelings. ZHG4 herself mentioned in that respect:
“it just feels better with them (ZHG6 and ZHG7), while with others that are in your ‘allergy’, if they say something stupid, then that is a confirmation of what you already know”. These assigned
personality attributed features also differentiates them from the others as ZHG5 for example is mentioned being ‘green and blue’, and ZHG3 mentions herself to be ‘blue’ and exemplifies this with:
“that has to do with a difference in personality: they focus on the general direction, while I like to work the details (…), I think that is why I became a controller and they became division managers, there is the difference”.
Readiness / Resistance to change is indicated by five out of eight TMT members to be an important attribute for division. Holt, Armenakis, Field & Harris (2007) define readiness to change as
“the extent to which individuals are willing to accept, embrace and adopt a particular plan to purposefully alter the status quo”. One TMT member reported: “there is a sense of action orientation with those three (ZHG4, ZHG6 and ZHG7)” and “those are people that want to progress, they want to change, they are ready for change”. It is apparent that this attribute differentiates TMT members from
others as the following was mentioned: “we have a couple of people on board that see opportunities
22
Educational background is an attribute reported by four out of eight TMT members. Educational background aligns partly with function, as some jobs require healthcare education. A shortage of managerial expertise is depicted onto the two TMT members who have a background in medicine: “I think a team-manager does not require healthcare education, ZHG5 thinks one does, this
influences the quality of management. ZHG1 does that too: he should not interfere with content, he should focus on strategy”. ZHG5 acknowledges this difference by stating: “this is a product of my healthcare background, I am concerned with quality and if that costs money, fine, so be it. Of course you have to have financial stability, but that is not the goal, the goal is to deliver high quality care. And that is a point of debate”. It is clear that the two healthcare educated TMT members find and
support each other often due to their similar background. Furthermore, the business educated TMT members tend to be in jobs that have less strict boundaries that require more coordination and cooperation.
Competence is an attribute recognized by five out of eight TMT members as a prime reason for social division within the TMT. This trait is depicted on ZHG4, ZHG6 and ZHG7 as one TMT member noted: “I think that all three of them are very competent in their role as manager,
undoubtedly. They have a strong influence on organizational culture, are communicative and have support throughout the organization. They also have the biggest chance that their opinion is legitimate, that it is valid in the organization”, and: “they are real managers; I think that is the biggest commonality. They are managers, good managers if you will”. One comment indicated that
competence in that sense, is also related to readiness for change: “the real managers will steer for
quick decision making, while the more ethically funded people like ZHG5 for instance, want to evaluate everything from multiple perspectives”. This feature that is assigned to the aforementioned
managers is also explicitly lacked by others: “I think that ZHG5 cannot think outside of her own
department, she struggles with that. And ZHG3, she just does not have the level a TMT member needs. She is a good controller, don’t misread, but I doubt whether she has the level of a TMT member”.
Further faultlines that have been reported, with lesser frequency are; tenure (1), functional background (2), vision to change (1), temporary employment (1), location (headquarters or brand office) (1) and the ability to think on a more abstract level (1). In order to present a clear picture of how faultlines align and how subgroups emerge, table 2 has been drafted. Individual TMT members who are part of the same subgroup (as deducted from the interviews) are depicted in the same shaded color (non-shaded TMT members are not part of a subgroup other than their own), while darker shades resemble the faultline bases that account for similarity attraction among the subgroups’ members, that have been administered through the questionnaire. Six out of eight TMT members indicate to perceive ZHG4, ZHG6 and ZHG7 to belong to subgroup 1. It has been mentioned about subgroup 1 that they
23
Table 2: Information TMT ZHG
*): Management narrow boundary span: (N), Management wide boundary span: (W), Director: D **): Four item (1-7) Likert scale with α: 0.876, M: 2.6, SD: 1.03
***): De Caluwé Colors in descending order of prevalence
ZHG5 (subgroup 2), as one quote mentions (in response to subgroup 1): “I have experienced that
ZHG5 would seek frequent contact with ZHG1 and ZHG2, as she felt threatened”. The other
mentioning of this entailed the following: “Sometimes ZHG1 and ZHG2 were a coalition, and ZHG5
would pull towards ZHG2, but the ‘four’ (subgroup 1 and ZHG8) had prevalence”.
To conclude, the members of subgroup 1 share the five most frequently reported faultline bases in a similar fashion while this differentiates them from the rest of the team and from subgroup 2 in particular. ZHG8 noted with regard to this: “these four (subgroup 1) appear to act like ‘magnets’,
sometimes they just click around a certain theme, there is something general in that they often find this click, but sometimes they are opposites, you can’t say they always find each other but there is some general tendency that they do... there is something in common, something that brings them together content wise, and this relates to the change but it is more than just that”.
4.1.3 Shared leadership
The findings indicate that shared leadership is generally low or moderate, meaning it depends on certain factors. No differences have been reported with regard to the pre-change situation. Six TMT members indicate that influence is not equally divided among TMT members. Some TMT members
Respondents ZHG1 ZHG2 ZHG3 ZHG4 ZHG5 ZHG6 ZHG7 ZHG8 Function*: D D N W N W W W Tenure: 29 18 6 4 20 1 25 N/A Educational background: Health-care Manage-ment Manage-ment Manage-ment Health-care Manage-ment Manage-ment Manage-ment Resistance to change score: ** 3.5 (+) 2.5 (-) 4.25 (+) 2.5 (-) 2.25 (-) 2.25 (-) 1 (-) N/A Vision on / Beliefs about change: ***
White White Blue Blue-Red
Blue- Green-White Blue- White-Red Blue-White N/A
24
indicate that the TMT is made up from two directors and six managers: “formally the managers only
have the capacity to give advice, while the directors have the discretionary capacity to make decisions”. However: “the directors will think twice before they make a decision that deviates completely from what the managers think”, showing the importance of informal influence. When
TMT members indicate moderate influence distribution, some factors on which this depends are mentioned: “our chairman for example, is a doctor. So if we discuss medical policy and
responsibilities, then it is difficult to exert influence on that topic” or: ‘I feel as if everybody could have input in the change, but I don’t feel as if everybody has put as much effort into it. If you put more work into it, chances are you have more influence”. A fairly coherent image is sketched by all TMT
members with regard to where influence centers. At the core, subgroup 1 is predominantly mentioned enduring most influence, as one of the directors mentioned: “I analyze three dominant players in the
TMT: both division-managers (ZHG 4 and ZHG6) and the manager-facilities (ZHG7), who is also chairman of the project-team”.
To conclude, it is clear that shared leadership is low, while a solid and coherent picture is sketched by all TMT members as to who has more and who has less influence. Formal influence tends to reside with the directors in subgroup 2 while informal influence resides with the members of subgroup 1. Therefore it can be deducted that the occurrence of faultines is related to a low degree of shared leadership.
4.1.4 Conclusion ZHG
The change has played an important role for the activation of faultlines as all triggers were change-related. Differential outcomes and different values contributed significantly since the stakes are big and outcomes unequally divided. One TMT member emphasized: “we all know that half of all TMT
functions will disappear, so you don’t want to be critical or step up to the occasion, as you just might be the one who’ll have to leave”. The faultlines that have been reported most frequently are; function,
25 4.2 Case 2: PLT
PLT represents a large semi-public organization active within the healthcare industry in the northern region of the Netherlands. Their core business entails a wide range of high-end care and cure services for primarily elderly people. The organization has a strong footprint in the region but suffers from competition that endures stronger relationships with general practitioners (from now on: GP’s). Due to upcoming changes in regulations and legislation the organization is looking for a way to strengthen their relationship with GP’s, this change is the primary change and focus for this case. In respect to the reason for this change, results indicate that the change is initiated through both endogenous (clear vision, mission) as exogenous (changes in regulations and legislation) stimuli. All TMT members indicate that the primary goal is to seek a closer working relationship with GP’s. All eight TMT members stressed that this change impacts all of Dutch society. The impact of the change is therefore large. This point focuses attention to the cumbersome nature of this change: all TMT members stressed that their influence on this change is limited due to a lacking grip on the process, as there is little value in executing this change in one way, as GP’s are fragmented, which renders this change a very complex endeavor, since GP’s lack the energy, know-how and sense of urgency needed. Individual TMT members tailor their approach towards GP’s, which is why the phase of- and satisfaction with the change differs among TMT members. Six out of eight TMT members have reported that the TMT features a strong sense of security and trust among its members, while the atmosphere has been depicted as ‘open’, ‘equal’ and ‘democratic’. Furthermore, the TMT finds a common enemy with regard to the change in the GP’s, and endures struggles rendered from the strategic alliance of which PLT is part, adding to the strength of the ties between TMT members.
4.2.1 Faultline triggers
Four trigger occurrences have been reported across this case, two of which were directly change-related.
Different values are mentioned on three accounts of which two are change-related. With regard to the change-related triggers, one TMT member mentioned: “the proposal was made by PLT4
to train us on how to handle the GP’s, to which I said: ‘I think this proposal lacks a thorough cause-effect analysis’”. From her consecutive line of reasoning, it became clear that a difference in values
about the change made her become aware of social division. The other change related trigger was mentioned by PLT7: “a couple of weeks ago I asked the TMT about the plans they made for this
change, and then I saw it happening before my eyes, how differently people manage that, that was kind of funny (laughter)”. The final trigger within this category was not change-related and concerns a
moment where the TMT was divided across their values regarding a proposed compensation. One TMT member stressed in that regard: “a very straightforward example of which I think this becomes
26
PLT7 thought this, so the person who started this discussion was clearly not heard and then you see that no decisions are made in that respect”.
Simple contact is mentioned by one TMT member with regard to a non-change related event. The TMT, in its current set-up, has been operating for a relatively short period and has done frequent teambuilding exercises. This trigger was reported in response to such an event: “we are a relatively
young team, as we have been working in this set-up for a bit over a year now. And of course some things have been at play and we used teambuilding to really make a team out of our group. I have certainly become aware of these kinds of things (the experience of diversity) during such exercises”.
To conclude, four faultline triggers have been mentioned, while two out of four triggers were directly change-related, rendering the role of change for faultline activation limited. It is expected that the absence of an integral approach towards change is related to this, as every TMT member virtually draws their own change approach, leading to the absence of a joint strategy and a shortage of interference among TMT members. Two categories of triggers have been reported, different values is indicated on three occurrences and therefore houses most value for faultline activation within the TMT. Simple contact has been mentioned a single occasion, rendering its value limited.
4.2.2 Faultline bases
All TMT members experience faultlines, while they do not manage to independently produce a coherent image on its resulting subgroups. First the faultline bases will be discussed, after which an indistinctly reported subgroup and its bases will be addressed.
Function is mentioned by six out of eight TMT members to be an important feature for division in the TMT. Function resembles the similarities and differences individual TMT members experience in their function with regard to others: “every department is different and I have affinity
with one manager because her cluster shares some similarities with mine, which makes it quite logical, pragmatic to cooperate”. Further evidence on the salience of function is mentioned with
regard to the nature of the job: “let’s call that the tensions between the medical and non-medical axes.
While at the core we all share the same vision, you still have a different view on events, depending on your job”.
Personality attributes features are mentioned by five out of eight TMT members to explain differences and similarities across TMT members. As one TMT member emphasized: “in general you
see that people find some sense of commonality that has to do with your color I would say”. With the
goal to assess individual team members and to perform teambuilding activities, all TMT members have endured personality (color) tests to find out about their strengths and weaknesses. These have been discussed during said activities, which is why PLT TMT members are generally aware about said differences: “well PLT7 for example, is very directive, steering if you will, that also resulted from that
